I don't know how many "conversations" I have started about this topic.
Today I want to discuss it once again. We were told that it was going to change dramatically. But all that changed is when we mod somebody down we are reminded that it only means "I disagree".
For any practical purpose, nothing relevant has changed. Modded down posts "disappear" (even if I have a score threshold of -20).
People with "controversial" opinions are modded down to hell...
The latest, most painful experience was Eugenia, a nice way to tell her "thanks for all the work you have done for us".
As to myself, even if I have been modded up quite a bit of late, I have also been modded down unreasonably, IMO.
Until people won't be able to freely express their opinion, this place will never be or feel like a real community. I mean, I have posted 839 times in 3 years. That is absolutely nothing. If this place felt like a community, my post count would be in the thousands.

Not sure about anonymous posting (it has also its cons), but getting rid altogether of peer moderation, once and forever, would totally change the spirit of this site, IMO.
Nominate a few trusted users who do the "proper" moderation, the same which should be done when you report abuse. Also, severely punish those who click on "report" without a good reason.

As far as I know, Adam, the guy that codes OSNews, does already have a new moderation system in the works. The added "I disagree" message boxes were not that new system. I assume it's been put off by Adam, seeing how long it's been since the announcement was made, but code does exist and I'm pretty sure that we'll see a revamped moderation system eventually.

And BTW, I believe I found a temporary solution: spot all the people who mod down more than average (say with a positive moderation below 70%) and take away all their moderation points.
I have just found out that some people enjoy being nasty, that is why peer moderation has never worked and never will. Homo homini lupus.

I agree that the moderation system should be changed but I have no idea how. What should be done to make it less of a popularity contest?

I was unhappy with the moderation Eugenia received and I felt that some of the comments that were moderated up were undeserved. But I guess at least a vocal part of the community made their voice heard.

Personally I do not post often, not out of fear of moderation though. I guess I am not a verbose person. On the other hand I have noticed myself hesitating to comment on some stories because I wanted to moderate the thread or an ongoing conversation instead. While this has a positive effect on lowering vindictive moderation it does decrease the amount of posting.

A few simple rules it could work from:
- Is the comment on-topic?
- Is it insulting?
- Does it make a logical argument, if it is attempting to make a point?
- Are the assertions of fact made in the comment actually factual? It could flag these for research until its knowledge database grows.

Such a system should be perfectly fair until it becomes self-aware and begins pushing its own agenda.

Also is it just me or does the report abuse button not work. When I click on it (firefox 3 and Konqueror on Ubuntu 8.04) it brings up an empty alert box and hides the comment for the session. When I return though it is back, laughing at me.

The recent rash of spams were the first time I ever felt the need to try so I do not know if this is recent or not.

Since it the 9000th discussion about a new moderation system, I recommend OSNews hire a full-time person to do nothing but revise the moderation system. Every Monday they would start developing a new system. It would be implemented on Friday, and all weekend we could moan and groan, until it starts over on Monday.

BUT....since we are in the suggestion mode, I'll throw in mine. Like Kroc, I comment a lot, which means I don't get to vote up/down comments a lot. I recommend that we not be able to moderate any comment in a thread below our comment; i.e., a reply or reply-to-reply below our comment. Since it is a recursive situtation, it may be a little harder for the PHP/SQL, but it would make more sense. To totally prohibit any further voting on the entire article seems a bit extreme.

Plus, as a developer, I like creating gnarly requirements for other coders! :}

"Since it the 9000th discussion about a new moderation system, I recommend OSNews hire a full-time person to do nothing but revise the moderation system. Every Monday they would start developing a new system. It would be implemented on Friday, and all weekend we could moan and groan, until it starts over on Monday."

Which doesn't change the fact that my suggestion has always been the same: get rid of peer moderation.

Well, to be honest I like a peer moderation system. Believe it or not, it helps me know what kinds of comments I make are useful for others, and which are not. Even my "comedy" posts benefit from this - I learn what people think is and is not funny. To me, it is useful feedback.

It seems to me that it doesn't matter how you change it. It only works for the people who play by the rules.

I've seen some behaviour from certain people which would suggest that they have at least 1 extra account, so that they can not only disagree but mod down each and every comment with which they disagree, including the replies to their comments.

Should there be a point where troll-like behaviour is rewarded by exile?